Yeah, the Sharks series he was fine - playing against physically slow players, of course. But otherwise, the pace was too quick for him and I don't mean as a result of his skating. He's a mentally slow player and very poor in transition if he can't just lug the puck straight through it without asking for directions. His lack of hockey sense was exposed throughout the playoffs as he just wasn't sure what to do. I'm not sure what the stat sheet says or whatever, but he wasn't one of the five best Blackhawks in the playoffs certainly...I remember when some of the clueless Joe Jackson's (Eddie Olczyk, maybe the king of them all) started talking about the anticipated Byfuglien vs. Pronger matchup...that provided a wealth of giggles for me, I remember saying that if Pronger was somehow pre-occupied with wasting his time with a player like Byfuglien, the series would be over in three games...besides one big hit by Byfuglien that battle simply didn't materialize to any degree...Pronger's too smart to get bogged down with such nincompoopery, he had way bigger fish to fry and a goalie to babysit...

Okay, so Byfuglien was instrumental in winning two series, not just one, and played one of the other two away from his usual (at the time, anyway) position.

And Pronger very much "wasted his time" with Byfuglien. He was the only person on the Flyers capable of dealing with Buffy's net-front presence and the shaft of his stick was affixed to Byfuglien's numbers any time the big winger tried to set up shop. Pronger won the battle and Byfuglien wasn't much of a factor (until the Hawks scattered their top line across their top 9 and when Pronger was in the box), but to say that the Flyers' defenseman's game plan for that series was to "ignore Byfuglien because his hockey sense is bad" is just flat out wrong. They went head to head. A lot. And Pronger won out.

Okay, so Byfuglien was instrumental in winning two series, not just one, and played one of the other two away from his usual (at the time, anyway) position.

And Pronger very much "wasted his time" with Byfuglien. He was the only person on the Flyers capable of dealing with Buffy's net-front presence and the shaft of his stick was affixed to Byfuglien's numbers any time the big winger tried to set up shop. Pronger won the battle and Byfuglien wasn't much of a factor (until the Hawks scattered their top line across their top 9 and when Pronger was in the box), but to say that the Flyers' defenseman's game plan for that series was to "ignore Byfuglien because his hockey sense is bad" is just flat out wrong. They went head to head. A lot. And Pronger won out.

Confusing fundamental hockey principles with actual "matching up" of players. Of course Pronger and Byfuglien met in front of the net. Byfuglien played in front on the power play and he was the crash-the-net backside winger for Toews and Kane (until his ineffectiveness saw him removed from the line and replaced with Tomas Kopecky). Pronger's responsibility would be Byfuglien there, he takes the guy in front. But it was forecasted that every time Laviolette saw Byfuglien drip off the bench that he would send Pronger out to match him. No, Pronger was out there to stop Kane and Toews...in his spare time, he rendered Byfuglien so useless that he was demoted out of the top-six as I recall...

I'm aware they were on the ice at the same time, in fact, they were fighting over the same ice at the same time sometimes, but it wasn't a "matchup" in the traditional sense...I guess it was a matchup like Chris Kunitz and Kimmo Timonen was a matchup last year...but that's really just basic hockey principles, not anything exceptional or noteworthy...

Quote:

"ignore Byfuglien because his hockey sense is bad" is just flat out wrong.

It's in quotation marks and then a negative point is made against it, but was it ever said? Please don't mischaracterize my point.

Confusing fundamental hockey principles with actual "matching up" of players. Of course Pronger and Byfuglien met in front of the net. Byfuglien played in front on the power play and he was the crash-the-net backside winger for Toews and Kane (until his ineffectiveness saw him removed from the line and replaced with Tomas Kopecky). Pronger's responsibility would be Byfuglien there, he takes the guy in front. But it was forecasted that every time Laviolette saw Byfuglien drip off the bench that he would send Pronger out to match him. No, Pronger was out there to stop Kane and Toews...in his spare time, he rendered Byfuglien so useless that he was demoted out of the top-six as I recall...

Chicago didn't really have a top six because of how important the Bolland line was, and that's where Byfuglien went. And Chicago didn't just demote Byfuglien, they blew up their entire top line halfway through game four and spread it around. Toews turned into a dummy line of sorts to absorb Pronger/Richards with Hossa, while Kane exploited Philly's lack of depth with Sharp as a secondary offensive option. That's because the chaos Byfuglien had created in the last two series was a fundamental part of Chicago's success and Quennevile had to rethink his entire ES offensive gameplan once that stopped working.

The media narrative wasn't Byfuglien dictating Pronger's TOI, it was a matchup between the driving disruptive force of Chicago's first line and power play against one of the all-time great crease-clearing defensemen. And while Laviolette prioritized Toews over Byfuglien in terms of when to send Pronger on the ice once Chicago weakened their first line, Pronger was still the only Flyers defenseman capable of physically handling Buffy, who put up four points the first game he was away from seeing Pronger on every shift.

Quote:

I'm aware they were on the ice at the same time, in fact, they were fighting over the same ice at the same time sometimes, but it wasn't a "matchup" in the traditional sense...I guess it was a matchup like Chris Kunitz and Kimmo Timonen was a matchup last year...but that's really just basic hockey principles, not anything exceptional or noteworthy...

Chris Kunitz didn't play into Pittsburgh's overall gameplan nearly as much as Byfuglien had with Chicago until seeing Pronger. Laughable comparison.

Quote:

It's in quotation marks and then a negative point is made against it, but was it ever said? Please don't mischaracterize my point.

How would you like me to paraphrase your at-best misleading and at-worst flat out wrong post filled with a myriad of hyperbole (all of which I was trying to emulate)? I'm serious.

So...let me get this straight...because Byfuglien caused "chaos" in the series against Vancouver in the second round (which he did, Vancouver was by far his most effective series), more than halfway through the Finals HCJQ decided to blow up his lineup? Seems odd...but sure why not...

I'm not sure why you're putting such an emphasis on being able to physically handle Byfuglien? That sounds like something you'd say for a legitimate power forward, not some net-front dummy. "The Penguins needed Ulf Samuelsson to take on Cam Neely because he's the only blueliner that could handle him physically" that works. But having Byfuglien in front of the net on the #1 PP merely matched up with the Flyers #1 PK that contained Pronger. It's not like anyone was panicked if Byfuglien got out there without Pronger being out there...he can't really do much, especially at forward, to dictate the tempo of the game. Even Pronger said after his only meaningful game (mostly stat-wise) of the serires, "I guess he was well rested" or something like that because everyone knew that he just wasn't as advertised...

In fact, the only two ES points he got in that game (which were mischaracterized as "four points the first game he was away from seeing Pronger on every shift." with OMG implications) were two secondary assists where he had very little to do with the goals. The weird bounce off the end wall that Bolland banked in off of a sieve goalie and the other was an individual rush by Versteeg who beat him with a mid-range jumper. Byfuglien got a PP goal and an empty net goal, both with Pronger out there I think...so, really, it just doesn't have much to do with that at all...Byfuglien at even strength continued to traipse around relatively aimlessly versus the expectations put on him...

He was good against the Canucks, for whatever reason, he brings his game for them. He scored some timely goals against the Sharks, which is good, but in terms of being an impact player all throughout that series, well, that just wasn't the case. He was an impact player on those particular moments where those particular shots went in...if you want? But, no, he was just not a noteworthy force in these playoffs like he's made out to be. It just didn't happen that way. Maybe on paper, I'm not sure, but not on the ice certainly...

As for your last point, I don't really want you to paraphrase anything of mine...especially if you're going to do it with such vitriol...haste makes waste clearly, so, I implore you to understand it and get it right or if you can't, just don't do it...

He scored some timely goals against the Sharks, which is good, but in terms of being an impact player all throughout that series, well, that just wasn't the case. He was an impact player on those particular moments where those particular shots went in...

I can only hope that that is sincere sentiment. Too often players get a free pass because they scored a goal in a game or got two assists and similarly, they can be unfairly lambasted for not scoring for a stretch of time. There's so much more to the game than that.

As a coach, I've told a player after a game in which he scored a hat trick that it wasn't his best effort and told him what needed to be improved and how...similarly, I've told a goalie after a shutout what he could do better to make his life easier and his defense's easier...

It's not to be disparaging or a "hard ass" or anything...I give out raves and rants accordingly...it just comes down to, "this happened during a game and it shouldn't..." Or "even though you didn't score...you were by far our best player tonight" It's what you see, not what Billy Beane reads...

I would have given it to a Hawk regardless, but the utter dismissal of Briere on this thread shocks me a bit. The guy led the postseason with 30 points. He had 12 points in 6 final games. Why are people choosing Pronger over Briere on the Flyers? I put Pronger as a clear #2 on Philly that spring. Briere was the key cog.

As for the Smythe, it isn't as if Toews was a poor choice because he wasn't. It is just that Kane or Keith could easily have won it as well. I get the feeling Kane wins the Smythe if the voting takes place after the Cup winning goal. However it didn't so I think that gave Toews the advantage.

I would have given it to a Hawk regardless, but the utter dismissal of Briere on this thread shocks me a bit. The guy led the postseason with 30 points. He had 12 points in 6 final games. Why are people choosing Pronger over Briere on the Flyers? I put Pronger as a clear #2 on Philly that spring. Briere was the key cog.

Key cog? Hardly. He was a second-line center who had some big games (often in Flyers losses) without having to kill penalties or see the best defenders. Great playoff, but more valuable than the 30-minute, 18-point defenseman whose play broke up Chicago's top-line? Nope.

Key cog? Hardly. He was a second-line center who had some big games (often in Flyers losses) without having to kill penalties or see the best defenders. Great playoff, but more valuable than the 30-minute, 18-point defenseman whose play broke up Chicago's top-line? Nope.

Alright that's fine. Nothing against Pronger but I would have put Briere above him this particular year. If you look at Briere's game log he was a huge part of the Flyers 3-0 series comeback against the Bruins. He just kept scoring and the fact he was doing it even in Philly losses is a good thing in my opinion, not the other way around.

Surprised how many feel Toews was a contentious choice. I don't really recall anybody thinking Kane should have won it at the time. I think people have forgotten how strong Toews was in both ends of the ice. Kane may have been the better pure offensive player, but Toews controlled the pace out there for his line most of the time. He was the straw that stirred the drink for Chicago, and was deserving of the Smythe.

Key cog? Hardly. He was a second-line center who had some big games (often in Flyers losses) without having to kill penalties or see the best defenders. Great playoff, but more valuable than the 30-minute, 18-point defenseman whose play broke up Chicago's top-line? Nope.

It's kind of ironic that he then got completely embarrassed by the Versteeg/Sharp/Kane combination that resulted.

It's kind of ironic that he then got completely embarrassed by the Versteeg/Sharp/Kane combination that resulted.

Definitely. But the fact that Chicago - who had just advanced past the 100 point Predators, the 103 point Canucks, and the 113 point Sharks - had to roll their best line over three lines because Chris Pronger of the 88 point Flyers ate them up in the first four games tells us exactly how valuable Pronger was. And he still outscored Toews in that Final.

Definitely. But the fact that Chicago - who had just advanced past the 100 point Predators, the 103 point Canucks, and the 113 point Sharks - had to roll their best line over three lines because Chris Pronger of the 88 point Flyers ate them up in the first four games tells us exactly how valuable Pronger was. And he still outscored Toews in that Final.

As much as I hate Pronger as a person, he was so dominate in the playoffs. I'd take him over Lidstrom even in the playoffs.